Stefan Wiens <s.wi@xxxxxxx> writes:
> Matthias Andree <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > You mean: that's why stdio is not really suited for network
> > applications? That's what it boils down to.
>
> I built a line-buffered leafnode.
> On a P200 Box with Linux 2.2.17, the full-buffered version transmits
> 5.6 MB/s after LIST ACTIVE, the line-buffered one 2.6 MB/s.
> In either case, CPU power limits the data rate:
> Both cause 99% CPU load; I think stdio isn't the only reason.
>
> Most interesting, line buffered mode actually results in larger
> average packet size. There seems to be some additional buffering in
> the kernel. ;-)
Well, as far as I'm concerned, the only line-buffering I originally
requested was for the messages that `fetchnews' sends to stdout.
The other line-buffering that's being discussed here clearly isn't
proper.
So ... is there any way that we can *just* have stdout line buffering
for the dignostic output of `fetchnews' ... or at the very most, for
the stdout diagnostics from the other utilities?
> [ ... ]
>
> Stefan
--
Lloyd Zusman
ljz@xxxxxxxxxx
--
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list